COMPARATIVE TABLES 


Showing the number of Japanese that would be in each State 

and fifty cities of 50,000 population and upwards, if > 

> * 

> ♦ *> 

•» 

each State and City had a Japanese popula¬ 
tion in proportion to whites, as 
exists in California and 
San Francisco. 



PUBLISHED BY 


THE JAPANESE AND KOREAN 

A 

EXCLUSION I LA£ 

_•_ ; 

- 



SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 
MARCH, 1907 


v' 

i 


t 


| 

} 



INTRODUCTORY. 

These tables are submitted by the Japanese and Korean Exclusion League to 
illustrate the danger to our social, industrial and political life accompanying the 
continued influx of Orientals to the mainland of the United States, or, by the 
admission to the rights of American citizenship of those already here. 

The data used for these tabulations are from the Report of the Twelfth Cen¬ 
sus and figures on file with the Exclusion League. The purpose of this publica¬ 
tion is to show the number of Japanese that would be in each State and each 
large city if the conditions existing in California and other parts of the Pacific 
Coast were duplicated throughout the United States. 

Eor the purpose of conciseness no attempt has been made to use the per¬ 
centages or fractional parts usually contained in tabulations of this nature, but 
the lower figures have been used in every instance, even when benefiting the 
Japanese side of the question. 

An effort has been made to explain each table in detail so that the purpose 
for which it has been compiled may be perceived, readily and understandingly. 






$85 


'■;! ' 3Vt 

;' v r<?ai 

TABLE 1. ••i ; ' r 

Showing the number of Japanese that would be in each State if each had a 
Japanese population proportionate to that of California. Compiled for the year 
1907 from the Twelfth Census Report, and the known number of Japanese in 
California, January 1, 1907: __ (_ 


STATE. 


< C < 


1900. 


Q 
Ifx E3- 

r+ 

P 3 
£ CD 
CD 'W 
03 CD 


rr 

CD 

d 

3 

r-h 

(D 

P 


1900. 


1900. 


1900. 


1907. 


p p 
r+ 3 

03 (yj 
CD 


3“ 

CD 


a 

3 

r+ 

<x> 

pi 


P O 
P *o 
*3 3 


P 

3 

CD 

03 

CD 


CD 

X 

CD 

>- 1 

3 

03 

f—'• 
< 
CD 

O 


03 

P ^ 

g ^ 

CD o 


O 

3 p 

O JT 
P p 

5 & 

o 

3 g 
P CD 

: 3 


e-i 
_ P 

CT tl 
CD ca 

§ 3 
p CD 
03 

CD £ 

g S- 
& 3 

O 

ui £ 

p P 

r-r t5“ 
CD 5 

M. < 

i-h CD 


0^-3 

S 

§ 3 *g 


2 . 5 

P CD 


Ch 

p 

O' 3 
CD P 

3 

i_i. CD 

a 03 

^ CD 


o 
3 
p 

03 r+ 

P CD 


P 


CD £• 
o 

p >-i 
M £ 
3‘ CD 


02 


p 


3 
►—* 

P 

<d a 

O 

5 3 


Alabama . 

58 

Alaska . 

3,116 

Arizona . 

1,419 

Arkansas. 

62 

California . 

45,755 

Colorado. 

599 

Connecticut . 

599 

Delaware . 

51 

District of Columbia . 

455 

Florida . 

120 

Georgia. 

204 

Hawaii . 

25,767 

Idaho . 

1,467 

Illinois.. . 

1,503 

Indiana. 

207 

Indian Territory. 

27 

Iowa . 

104 

Kansas \ . 

39 

Kentucky .. .. 

57 

Louisiana.* ’ * 

p 599 

' Maine \ -j 

T r—rr 

T ryl ? hisetts . 

044 

2,768 

n . 

240 

ta ... , ... 

166 

PPi . 

237 

i . 

449 

a . 

1,739 

k . 

180 

£■ J 

+ *. 

1,352 

lampshire . 

112 

[ersey . 

1,393 

Mexico . 

341 

ew York . 

7,170 

North Carolina . 

57 

North Dakota . 

32 

Ohio . 

371 

Oklahoma. 

31 

Oregon . 

10,397 

Pennsylvania. 

1,927 

Rhode Island. 

366 

South Carolina. 

67 

South Dakota. 

165 

Tennessee . 

75 

Texas . 

836 

Utah . 

V2 

Vermont. 

39 

Virginia . 

243 

Washington. 

3,259 

West Virginia. 

56 

Wisconsin. 

212 

Wyoming. 

461 

U. S. Army and Navy_ 

304 


3 

1,828,694 

12,611 

265 

63,327 

436 

281 

122,650 

851 


1,311,564 

9,045 

10,151 

1,474,902 

10,151 

48 

539,654 

3,654 

18 

908,402 

6,900 

1 

184,734 

1,274 

7 

278,711 

1,922 

1 

528,541 

3,645 

1 

2,216,230 

15,285 

61,111 

92,890 

61,111 

1,291 

(125) 160,481 

1,294 

80 

4,821,470 

33,251 

5 

2,516,457 

17,355 


392,060 

2,704 

7 

2,231,846 

15,392 

4 

1,470,491 

10,141 

• • • • 

2,147,174 

14,808 

17 

1,381,608 

9,528 

4 

, _ c'O ' ‘fO 


9 

1,888,035 

8,193 

53 

2,805,293 

19,339 

9 

2,420,973 

16,696 

57 

1,751,343 

12,078 


1,551,270 

10,690 

9 

3,106,656 

21,451 

2,441 

(98) 240,888 

2,455 

3 

1,066,297 

7,354 

228 

42,107 

290 

1 

411,587 

2,838 

52 

1,883,617 

12,990 

8 

195,302 

1.347 

354 

7,268,540 

50,128 


1,893,810 

13,061 

148 

318,998 

2,200 

27 

4,157,578 

28,672 


398,331 

2,747 

2,501 

411,035 

2,835 

40 

6,302,075 

43,462 

13 

428,543 

2,955 


1,340,316 

9,243 

1 

401,569 

2,769 

4 

2,020,612 

13,935 

13 

3,048,697 

21,025 

417 

276,332 

1,905 


343,641 

2,370 

243 

1,854,174 

12,787 

5,617 

(691) 512,486 

5,617 

56 

958,800 

6,613 

212 

2,069,037 

14,269 

461 

92,138 

639 


284 



75,666 

2,616 

5,106 

54,270 

60,906 

21,924 

41,520 

7,644 

11,532 

21,870 

91,710 

61,111 

7,744 

199,506 

104,130 

16,224 

92,352 

60,846 

88,848 

57,168 

/-> 4 O < “ s 

49,158 

116,034 

100.176 
72,468 
64,140 

128.176 
14,720 
44,124 

1,740 

17,028 

77,940 

8,082 

300,768 

78,366 

13,200 

172,032 

16,482 

17,010 

260,772 

17,730 

55,458 

16.614 
83,610 

126,150 
11,430 
14,220 
76,722 
33,702 
39,678 

85.614 
3,810 


,224,447 




Gilt 

Author *i5X7 


V 






































































































































. iflU 

Table 1 shows conclusively that if the States east of the Rocky Mountains 
had a Japanese population proportionate with that of California, the question of 
exclusion would appear to them more worthy of consideration than at present. 
The table shows, also, the number of Chinese and Japanese in each State as 
per census of 1900, the population of each State (not including Japanese), the 
number of Japanese that would have been in each State in 1900 if in the same 
proportion to the other population as in California, and also the number that 
would be in each State at the present time, if computed upon the proportionate 
increase in this State. 

In 1900 the proportion of Japanese to all others in California was 1 to 145, 
and column 4 indicates the number that would have been in each State at the 
taking of the census in 1900, providing the proportion in California were main¬ 
tained throughout the country. 

Between 1900 and January 1, 1907, the Japanese in California increased from 
10,151 to about 65,000, or over 500 per cent. Column 5 shows how many 
Japanese would be in each State, in accordance with this marvelous and danger¬ 
ous increase. 

It will be seen that Hawaii is not credited with an increase, that Territory 
being merely a port of call for the immigrants, their real destination being the 
mainland. In 1900 three States had a greater proportion of Japanese than Cali¬ 
fornia—Idaho, with 1 to 125, Montana, 1 to 98, and Washington, 1 to 91; but 
for comparison the tabulations are computed upon the number of Japanese in 
California, 1 to 145 of all others. 















TABLE 2. 

Showing the number of Japanese that would be in cities of 100,000 popula¬ 
tion and cities of 50,000 and over if each had a Japanese population in proportion 
to those in San Francisco, 1 Japanese to 40 others. 


1900 

1900. 

1907. 

1907. 

CITIES OF 100,000 AND OVER. 

• 

Number of Japanese per 
census of 1900. 

Estimated population of 
cities, based upon in¬ 
crease, 1S90-1900. 

* 

1 

Number of Japanese that 
would be in each city 
if the proportion to 
other population were 
the same as in San 
Francisco. 

New York. 

286 

3,591,703 

89,792 

Chicago . 

68 

1,996,907 

49,922 

Philadelphia . 

12 

1,417,063 

35,426 

St. Louis. 

4 

636,972 

15,924 

Boston . 

29 

617,709 

15,427 

Baltimore . 

4 

546,216 

13,655 

Cleveland . 

11 

441,975 

11,049 

Buffalo. 

1 

400,748 

10,018 

San Francisco. 

1,781 

400,000 

10,000 

Cincinnati. 

• • • • 

340,399 

8,500 

Pittsburgh. 

1 

363,115 

9,077 

New Orleans. 

5 

309,636 

7,740 

Detroit. 

2 

325,618 

8,140 

Milwaukee . 

• • • • 

325,738 

8,143 

Washington . 

7 

302,881 

7,572 

N ew ark . 

3 

278,190 

6,954 

Jersey City. 

1 

228,148 

5,703 

Louisville . 

• • • • 

226,532 

5,663 

Minneapolis . 

.... 

221,708 

5,542 

Providence . 

V 

197,322 

4,933 

Indianapolis . 

1 

201,028 

5,025 

Kansas City, Mo. 

2 

179,270 

4,481 

St. Paul. 

5 

178,019 

4,450 

Rochester . ..:. 

2 

176,964 

4,424 

Toledo . 

• • • • 

157,016 

3,925 

Columbus . 

5 

144,265 

3,606 

New Haven.... %. 

11 

121,391 

3,034 

Fall River. 

• • • • 

120,095 

3,002 

Denver.. 

19 

147,432 

3,685 

Memphis . 

• • • • 

121,232 

3,030 

Scranton . 

2 

115,431 

2,885 

St. Joseph. 

• • • • 

128,306 

3,207 

Paterson. 

• • • • 

118,583 

2,964 

Worcester .. 

• • • • 

135,304 

3,382 

Los Angeles. 

150 

128,521 

3,213 









































































1900. 

* - 

1907. 

1907. 

1900. 

CITIES OF 50,000 AND OVER. 

Estimated population of 

cities, based upon in¬ 

crease, 1890-1900. 

Number of Japanese that 
would be in each city 
if the proportion to 
other population were 
the same as in San 
Francisco. 

Number of Japanese per 
census of 1900. 

Seattle . 

99,588 

2,489 

2,990 

Oakland . 

150,000 

3,750 

194 

Albany. 

94,151 

2,553 

• • • • 

Lridgeport . 

82,061 

2,051 

4 

Camden . 

84,246 

2,106 

• • • • 

Charleston, S. C. 

56,020 

1,400 

• • • • 

Dayton. 

85,333 

1,205 

• • • • 

Des Moines. 

68,162 

1,704 

3 

Duluth . 

62,896 

1,572 

m 

Flizabeth . .. 

59,313 

1,482 


Erie ....... 

58,782 

1,469 

6 

Evansville . 

63,132 

1,578 

• • • • 

Grand Rapids. 

101,208 

2,530 

• • • • 

Harrisburg . 

55,558 

1,388 

• • • • 

Hartford . 

93,160 

2,329 

• • • • 

Hoboken . 

67,222 

1,680 

2 

Lawrence . 

71,511 

1,787 

• • • • 

Lowell . 

103.105 

2,577 

1 

Lynn.:. 

74,906 

1,872 

.... 

Portland, Or. 

112,446 

2,811 

1,189 

Total. 

1,642,800 

40,333 

4,389 


In estimating the population of the above cities i n creas e~th§- 
census returns of 1890 and 1900 were found and 50 per cent of that increase 
added to the number given in the report of 1900. For San Francisco and Oak¬ 
land, however, an arbitrary estimate has been made, and possibly too small a one. 
The estimates of real estate men place the population of San Francisco between 
400,000 and 450,000. It has been deemed wise to adopt the more conservative 
number. 

The proportion of Japanese to all others in San Francisco has been placed 
at 1 to 40 others. The estimate of 10,000 as the Japanese population of this city 
is derived from a statement of Consul-General Uyeno, and that number is used 
as a basis for the computations, though it is certain there are a great many more. 

Seattle, according to the table, has less Japanese than in 1900, but a conserv¬ 
ative estimate places the number between 7,000 and 8,000. Oakland, with an esti¬ 
mated population of 150,000, is given 3,750 Japanese, some 1,500 too little, 
while the increase of the Japanese in Portland is much more than is shown in 
the tabulation. Honolulu has been omitted for obvious reasons, and though as 
indicated in Table 1, the Japanese population of Hawaii has not increased to any 
great extent, the population of Honolulu has become more Japanized, owing to 
the laborers deserting the plantations for city life. Honolulu in 1900 had 6,179 
Japanese : today more than 10,000. 

Analysis of this table shows us that the Japanese are prone to concentrate 
and form large colonies, silently occupying and tenaciously holding every vantage 
ground. A study of the increase of the Japanese (by counties, 1880, 1890, 1900, 
1905), as shown on pages 7-8 of a pamphlet on Japanese immigration, etc., pub¬ 
lished by the Exclusion League, January 1, 1907, will indicate how rapidly these 
people increase when once they have established a small colony. This table illus¬ 
trates what may happen or be expected when the trend of Japanese immigration is 
from the Pacific to the Atlantic. 
























































TABLE 3. 


Showing the possible result of Japanese and Chinese being admitted to 
citizenship, together with the number of Japanese voters that would he in each 
State were their numbers equal to those in California. 


* 

1900. 

1900. 

1907. 

1900. 

STATE. 

Males of voting age other 

than Japanese . 

J 

Male Japanese of voting 
age.. 

The number of Japanese 
voters there would be 
in each State if they 
were naturalized, and 
if each State had a 
number proportionate 
with that of California 


Male Chinese of voting 
as:e.. 

Alabama. 

413,859 

3 

41,385 


52 

Alaska . 

37,708 

248 

3,770 

3,078 

Arizona . 

43,880 

201 

4,388 


1,277 

Arkansas. 

313,836 


31,383 


50 

California. 

537,295 

6,792 

53,729 

33,000 

Colorado. 

185,678 

30 

18,567 


555 

Connecticut. 

280,318 

22 

28,031 


553 

Delaware. 

54,017 

1 

5,401 


48 

District of Columbia. 

83,814 

9 

8,381 


404 

Florida .. 

139,600 

1 

13,960 


116 

Georgia . 

500,751 

1 

50,075 


174 

Hawaii. 

38,276 

41,331 

41,331 

18,457 

Idaho . 

53,042 

890 

5 304 

1 370 

Illinois . 

140,386 

70 

14,038 

1,409 

Indiana. 

720,206 

4 

72,020 


191 

Indian Territory.. 

97,361 

• • • • 

9,736 


27 

Iowa . 

635,288 

10 

63,528 


88 

Kansas. 

413,784 

2 

41,378 


37 

Kentucky. 

543,995 

1 

54,399 


44 

Louisiana . . . 

325.931 

12 

32,593 



Maine .. 

217,657 

6 

21,765 


93 

Maryland . 

321,997 

6 

32,199 


480 

Massachusetts. 

843,410 

55 

84,341 

2,581 

Michigan .. 

719,471 

7 

71,947 


217 

Minnesota . 

506,753 

41 

50,675 


143 

Mississippi . 

349,177 


• • • • 

34,917 


199 

Missouri. 

856,677 

7 

85,677 


435 

Montana. 

100,121 

1,810 

10,012 

1,628 

Nebraska. 

301,085 

6 

30,108 


178 

Nevada. 

17,532 

178 

1,753 

1,209 

New Hampshire. 

130,986 

1 

13,098 


98 

New lersey. 

555,553 

45 

55,555 

1,307 

New York.. 

2,184,965 

317 

218,496 

6.612 

New Mexico. 

55,061 

6 

5,506 


306 

North Carolina.. 

417,577 

1 

41,757 


43 

North Dakota. 

95,093 

124 

9,509 


30 

Ohio.... 

1,212,206 

17 

121,220 


326 

Oklahoma . 

109,191 

• • • 

10,919 


32 

Oregon .. 

142,540 

1,900 

14,254 

9,139 

Pennsylvania .. 

1,817,209 

30 

181,720 

1.786 

"Rhode Island.. 

127.130 

14 

12,713 


336 

South Carolina.. 

283,325 

• • • • 

28,332 


61 

South Dakota. . . 

112,681 

• • • • 

11,268 


140 

T ennessee.. 

487,376 

4 

48,737 


64 

Texas.. 

737,760 

8 

73,776 


762 

Utah . . . 

66,875 

297 

6,687 


526 

Vermont.. . . 1 

108,356 

.... 

10,835 


36 

Virginia.. . . | 

447,805 

io 

44,780 


228 

Washington .. 

191,210 

4,362 

19,121 

3.348 

Wisconsin . 

570.711 

4 

57,071 


198 

Wyoming.. 

37,606 

292 

3,760 


420 

West Virginia. 

- J 

247,970 

.... 

24,797 


45 

Total. | 

_-_ 1 

21,170,619 | 
■1 

59,176 
_1 

2,030,680 i 

1 

99,741 




































































































Tabic 3 indicates the population of Japanese of voting age to that of the 
whites. 

Column 3 indicates the number of Japanese of voting age that would be in each 
State in 1907 if the proportion in California—1 Japanese to 10 of all others—were 
maintained throughout the whole country. In California the proportion of Jap¬ 
anese women and children to the males is very small and the figures, 53,729, indi¬ 
cating the number of Japanese males of voting age is well within the number that 
would be found by actual count. In 1900 there were also 38,000 Chinese of 
voting age in California, and today, notwithstanding the appreciable decrease in 
that element of our population, there are at least 30,000 Chinese of voting age in 
the State, which added to the Japanese of voting age, would make, if admitted 
to citizenship, fully one-sixth of the total voting population of California. 

The people of California and of the United States stand aghast at the dan¬ 
gerous possibilities confronting them through the advocacy by certain Amer¬ 
icans (?) of Mongolian citizenship. 

Upon searching the census and other government reports for figures for 
this compilation, it was discovered that in many instances the Japanese are not 
separately classified, but are placed with the Chinese under the heading of Mon¬ 
golians. This is particularly noticeable in the census and immigration reports 
and those of the ethnological division of the Smithsonian Institute. For this 
reason the figures above given are not so full as contemplated by the compilers. 

Column 4 shows the number of Chinese of voting age in 1900. Between 
1890-1900 there was a net decrease in the Chinese of 16.4 per cent. Between 
1900-1907 the records of the various steamship companies show a steady decrease 
of Chinese, but the results of an investigation, on the Mexican boundary, by 
Special Agent Braun show that there is a steady flow of Chinese into the United 
States by that route. The conclusions are that, though the Chinese are decreasing 
in California, their numbers are increasing in the Atlantic States and in the States 
adjoining Canada. 


















